Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 238 / Wednesday, December 13, 2023 / Proposed Rules 86301 

TABLE 1 TO § 100.801—SECTOR OHIO VALLEY ANNUAL AND RECURRING MARINE EVENTS—Continued 

Date Event/sponsor Ohio Valley location Regulated area 

80. 1 Day—One weekend in September.Parkesburg Paddle Fest ................... Parkersburg, WV ............. Ohio River, Mile 184.3–188 (West 

Virginia). 

81. 2 Days—One of the last three 

weekends in September.

Madison Vintage Thunder ................. Madison, IN ..................... Ohio River, Mile 556.5–559.5 (Indiana). 

82. 1 Day—Third Sunday in September.Team Rocket Tri Club/Swim Hobbs 

Island.

Huntsville, AL .................. Tennessee River, Mile 332.3–338.0 

(Alabama). 

83. 1 Day in September .................... Knoxville Open Water Swimmers/ 

Bridges to Bluffs.

Knoxville, TN ................... Tennessee River, Mile 641.0–648.0 

(Tennessee). 

84. 1 Day—Last Sunday in August or 

Second Sunday in September.

Adventure Crew/Great Ohio River 

Swim.

Cincinnati, OH ................. Ohio River, Mile 468.8–471.2 (Ohio 

and Kentucky). 

85. 1 Day—One of the last two 

weekends in September.

Ohio River Open Water Swim .......... Prospect, KY ................... Ohio River, Mile 587.0–591.0 (Kentucky). 

86. 2 Days—One of the last three 

weekends in September or the first 

weekend in October.

Captain Quarters Regatta ................. Louisville, KY ................... Ohio River, Mile 594.0–598.0 (Kentucky). 

87. 3 Days—One of the last three 

weekends in September or one of 

the first two weekends in October.

Owensboro Air Show ........................ Owensboro, KY ............... Ohio River, Mile 754.0–760.0 (Kentucky). 

88. 1 Day in September .................... World Triathlon Corporation/ 

IRONMAN Chattanooga.

Chattanooga, TN ............. Tennessee River, Mile 462.7–467.5 

(Tennessee). 

89. 3 Days—Last weekend of September and/or first weekend in October.New Martinsville Records and Regatta Challenge Committee.New Martinsville, WV ...... Ohio River, Mile 128–129 (West Virginia). 

90. 2 Days—First weekend of October.Three Rivers Rowing Association/ 

Head of the Ohio Regatta.

Pittsburgh, PA ................. Allegheny River mile 0.0–5.0 (Pennsylvania). 

91. 1 Day in October ......................... Chattajack ......................................... Chattanooga, TN ............. Tennessee River, Miles 462.7–465.5 

(Tennessee). 

92. 1 Day in October ......................... Cumberland River Compact/Cumberland River Dragon Boat Festival.Nashville, TN ................... Cumberland River, Mile 189.7–192.1 

(Tennessee). 

93. 1 Day in October ......................... Outdoor Chattanooga/Swim the Suck Chattanooga, TN ............. Tennessee River, Miles 443–455 

(Tennessee). 

94. 1 Day in October ......................... Lookout Rowing Club/Chattanooga 

Head Race.

Chattanooga, TN ............. Tennessee River, Mile 463.0–468.0 

(Tennessee). 

95. 1 Day in October ......................... Shoals Scholar Dollar ....................... Florence, AL .................... Tennessee River 255–257 (Alabama). 

96. 2 Days in October ....................... Music City Head Race ...................... Nashville, TN ................... Cumberland River 190–195 (Tennessee). 

97. 2 Days—First or second week of 

October.

Head of the Ohio Rowing Race ........ Pittsburgh, PA ................. Allegheny River, Mile 0.0–3.0 (Pennsylvania). 

98. 2 Days—in October ..................... Oak Ridge Rowing Association/Secret City Head Race Regatta.Oak Ridge, TN ................ Clinch River, Mile 46.0–54.0 (Tennessee). 

99. 3 Days—a weekend in November.Head of the Hooch Regatta .............. Chattanooga, TN ............. Tennessee River, Mile 463.0–468.0 

(Tennessee). 

100. 1 Day—Second weekend in December.Charleston Lighted Boat Parade ....... Charleston, WV ............... Kanawha River, Mile 54.3–60.3 

(West Virginia). 

Dated: December 6, 2023. 

H.R. Mattern, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port Sector Ohio Valley. 

[FR Doc. 2023–27306 Filed 12–12–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 117 

[Docket No. USCG–2023–0912] 

RIN 1625–AA09 

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; 

Saginaw River, Bay City, MI 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to 

temporarily modify the operating 

schedule that governs the Independence 

Bridge, mile 3.88, over the Saginaw 

River to allow contractors to rehabilitate 

the bridge. We invite your comments on 

this proposed rulemaking. 

DATES: Comments and related material 

must reach the Coast Guard on or before 

February 12, 2024. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by docket number USCG– 

2023–0912 using Federal DecisionMaking Portal at https://

www.regulations.gov. 

See the ‘‘Public Participation and 

Request for Comments’’ portion of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 

below for instructions on submitting 

comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this proposed 

rule, call or email Mr. Lee D. Soule, 

Bridge Management Specialist, Ninth 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
86302 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 238 / Wednesday, December 13, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

Coast Guard District; telephone 216– 

902–6085, email Lee.D.Soule@uscg.mil. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Table of Abbreviations 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

DHS Department of Homeland Security 

FR Federal Register 

IGLD International Great Lakes Datum of 

1985 

LWD Low Water Datum based on IGLD85 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(Advance, Supplemental) 

§ Section 

U.S.C. United States Code 

II. Background, Purpose, and Legal 

Basis 

The Saginaw River is a 22.4-mile-long 

river in that is a popular recreational 

and an important shipping route for 

mid-Michigan and the Great Lakes in 

general. The Independence Bridge, mile 

3.88, is one of sixteen bridges that cross 

the Saginaw River in the Bay City 

Metropolitan Area. Out of the sixteen 

bridges only four are bascule bridges, 

two are owned by the State of Michigan 

and two have been recently leased by 

the city of Bay City to United Bridge 

Partners, a private company that intends 

to rehabilitate the two bridges and 

charge vehicles tolls to cross the 

bridges. 

The proposal to lease the bridges and 

charge tolls has created the need for 

several public meetings and has flooded 

the local area news media with stories 

concerning the progress of the 

rehabilitation and administration 

regarding the Independence Bridge. 

United Bridge Partners has 

established a physical customer service 

office within Bay City and a twentyfour-hour call line residents and 

mariners can call to receive information 

concerning the bridge operations and 

proposed construction schedule. United 

Bridge Partner, the City of Bay City, 

along with their chosen contractor held 

a public meeting on August 15, 2023, 

along with many media interviews prior 

to the public meeting. Most of the 

questions from the public were 

regarding the pass ability of vehicles 

and tolls associated with the new bridge 

ownership rather than the impacts the 

maintenance would have on the marine 

community. 

On November 13, 2023, 

representatives from Congressman Dan 

Kildee, Senator Gary Peters, 

Congressman John Moolenaar, and 

Senator Debbie Stabenow’s offices along 

with the U.S. Coast Guard and nineteen 

area stakeholders had a meeting to 

discuss the proposed rehabilitation 

project’s effects on vessel traffic. The 

thirty people in attendance proposed 

the conditions in this proposed rule. 

The Independence Bridge, mile 3.88, 

is a double leaf bascule bridge that 

crosses the Saginaw River and provides 

a horizontal clearance of 150 feet and a 

vertical clearance of 22 feet above LWD 

in the closed position and an unlimited 

clearance in the open position. The 

bridge allows vehicles and pedestrians 

to cross the river near the north end of 

the City of Bay City. The Independence 

Bridge, mile 3.88, is regulated under 33 

CFR 117.647 and is allowed to open 

twice hourly in the summer and from 

January 1 through March 31 will open 

if a 12-hour advance notice is provided. 

The reason for this proposed rule will 

be to allow the bridge to be secured to 

masted navigation from December 1 

through March 31 and then through the 

summer require a 2-hour advance notice 

for openings to accommodate the 

rehabilitation of the bridge. 

Granit Construction, the official 

contractor for the bridge owner has 

made this request for a temporary 

change in the bridge schedule to allow 

for the rehabilitation of structural, 

electrical, and mechanical components 

of the bridge during the winter when 

accumulation of ice makes navigating 

the river difficult. 

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule 

The Independence Bridge, mile 3.88, 

is near the mouth of the river and there 

are no alternative routes for vessels. The 

December 1 to March 31 dates have 

been identified by local stake holders 

and dock owners as the best time to 

secure the bridge to masted navigation 

for the rehabilitation project. Because 

the new bridge owner intends to charge 

tolls on the bridge that once was free to 

cross has caused several people to be 

concerned about any bridge project in 

the area. 

IV. Regulatory Analyses 

We developed this proposed rule after 

considering numerous statutes and 

Executive orders related to rulemaking. 

Below we summarize our analyses 

based on these statutes and Executive 

orders. 

A. Regulatory Planning and Review 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

direct agencies to assess the costs and 

benefits of available regulatory 

alternatives and, if regulation is 

necessary, to select regulatory 

approaches that maximize net benefits. 

This proposed rule has not been 

designated a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action,’’ under section 3(f) of Executive 

Order 12866, as amended by Executive 

Order 14094 (Modernizing Regulatory 

Review). This NPRM has not been 

designated a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action,’’ under Executive Order 12866. 

Accordingly, the NPRM has not been 

reviewed by the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB). 

This regulatory action determination 

is based on the ability that vessels can 

still transit the bridge given advanced 

notice and that the repair winter work 

will be done at a time of year when 

vessel traffic is at its lowest. 

B. Impact on Small Entities 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 

(RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601–612, as amended, 

requires Federal agencies to consider 

the potential impact of regulations on 

small entities during rulemaking. The 

term ‘‘small entities’’ comprises small 

businesses, not-for-profit organizations 

that are independently owned and 

operated and are not dominant in their 

fields, and governmental jurisdictions 

with populations of less than 50,000. 

The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 

605(b) that this proposed rule would not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

While some owners or operators of 

vessels intending to transit the bridge 

may be small entities, for the reasons 

stated in section IV.A above this 

proposed rule would not have a 

significant economic impact on any 

vessel owner or operator. 

If you think that your business, 

organization, or governmental 

jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity 

and that this proposed rule would have 

a significant economic impact on it, 

please submit a comment (see 

ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it 

qualifies and how and to what degree 

this proposed rule would economically 

affect it. 

Under section 213(a) of the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), 

we want to assist small entities in 

understanding this proposed rule. If the 

proposed rule would affect your small 

business, organization, or governmental 

jurisdiction and you have questions 

concerning its provisions or options for 

compliance, please contact the person 

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section. The Coast Guard will 

not retaliate against small entities that 

question or complain about this 

proposed rule or any policy or action of 

the Coast Guard. 

C. Collection of Information 

This proposed rule would call for no 

new collection of information under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501–3520). 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 238 / Wednesday, December 13, 2023 / Proposed Rules 86303 

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal 

Governments 

A rule has implications for federalism 

under Executive Order 13132 

(Federalism), if it has a substantial 

direct effect on the States, on the 

relationship between the National 

Government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. We have analyzed 

this proposed rule under that Order and 

have determined that it is consistent 

with the fundamental federalism 

principles and preemption requirements 

described in Executive Order 13132. 

Also, this proposed rule does not have 

tribal implications under Executive 

Order 13175 (Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments) because it would not 

have a substantial direct effect on one or 

more Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes. 

If you believe this proposed rule has 

implications for federalism or Indian 

tribes, please contact the person listed 

in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section. 

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their discretionary regulatory actions. In 

particular, the Act addresses actions 

that may result in the expenditure by a 

State, local, or tribal government, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector of 

$100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or 

more in any one year. Though this 

proposed rule will not result in such an 

expenditure, we do discuss the effects of 

this proposed rule elsewhere in this 

preamble. 

F. Environment 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Department of Homeland 

Security Management Directive 023–01, 

Rev.1, associated implementing 

instructions, and Environmental 

Planning Policy COMDTINST 5090.1 

(series), which guide the Coast Guard in 

complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f). The 

Coast Guard has determined that this 

action is one of a category of actions that 

do not individually or cumulatively 

have a significant effect on the human 

environment. This proposed rule 

promulgates the operating regulations or 

procedures for drawbridges. Normally 

such actions are categorically excluded 

from further review, under paragraph 

L49, of chapter 3, table 3–1 of the U.S. 

Coast Guard Environmental Planning 

Implementation Procedures. 

Neither a Record of Environmental 

Consideration nor a Memorandum for 

the Record are required for this 

proposed rule. We seek any comments 

or information that may lead to the 

discovery of a significant environmental 

impact from this proposed rule. 

V. Public Participation and Request for 

Comments 

We view public participation as 

essential to effective rulemaking and 

will consider all comments and material 

received during the comment period. 

Your comment can help shape the 

outcome of this rulemaking. If you 

submit a comment, please include the 

docket number for this rulemaking, 

indicate the specific section of this 

document to which each comment 

applies, and provide a reason for each 

suggestion or recommendation. 

Submitting comments. We encourage 

you to submit comments through the 

Federal Decision-Making Portal at 

https://www.regulations.gov. To do so, 

go to https://www.regulations.gov, type 

USCG–2023–0912 in the search box and 

click ‘‘Search.’’ Next, look for this 

document in the Search Results column, 

and click on it. Then click on the 

Comment option. If your material 

cannot be submitted using https://

www.regulations.gov, contact the person 

in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section of this document for 

alternate instructions. 

Viewing material in docket. To view 

documents mentioned in this proposed 

rule as being available in the docket, 

find the docket as described in the 

previous paragraph, and then select 

‘‘Supporting & Related Material’’ in the 

Document Type column. Public 

comments will also be placed in our 

online docket and can be viewed by 

following instructions on the https://

www.regulations.gov Frequently Asked 

Questions web page. Also, if you go to 

the online docket and sign up for email 

alerts, you will be notified when 

comments are posted, or a final rule is 

published of any posting or updates to 

the docket. 

We review all comments received, but 

we will only post comments that 

address the topic of the proposed rule. 

We may choose not to post off-topic, 

inappropriate, or duplicate comments 

that we receive. 

Personal information. We accept 

anonymous comments. Comments we 

post to https://www.regulations.gov will 

include any personal information you 

have provided. For more about privacy 

and submissions in response to this 

document, see DHS’s eRulemaking 

System of Records notice (85 FR 14226, 

March 11, 2020). 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117 

Bridges. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to 

amend 33 CFR part 117 as follows: 

PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE 

OPERATION REGULATIONS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 117 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05–1; 

DHS Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision No. 

01.3. 

■ 2. [From the date of publication in the 

Federal Register], through 11:59 p.m. on 

March 31, 2025, § 117.647(e) is 

temporarily added to read as follows: 

§ 117.647 Saginaw River. 

* * * * * 

(e) The draw of the Independence 

Bridge, mile 3.88, over the Saginaw 

River, will require a 2-hour advance 

notice of arrival to be given to move 

barges away from the draw to allow 

vessels to pass through the bridge from 

April 24, 2024, through November 30, 

2024, and the bridge need not open for 

the passage of vessels from December 1, 

2024, through March 31, 2025. 

Jonathan Hickey, 

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, 

Ninth Coast Guard District. 

[FR Doc. 2023–27385 Filed 12–12–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2021–0367; FRL–11573– 

01–R4] 

Air Plan Approval; Alabama; 

Birmingham Limited Maintenance Plan 

for the 2006 24-Hour PM2.5 NAAQS 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a 

State implementation plan (SIP) 

revision submitted by the State of 

Alabama, through the Alabama 

Department of Environmental 

Management (ADEM), via a letter dated 

February 2, 2021. The SIP revision 

includes the 2006 24-hour fine 

particulate matter (PM2.5) national 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS